SLAYER Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 how the ground can cause an incomplete pass, but not a fumble. seems contradictory to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 how the ground can cause an incomplete pass, but not a fumble. seems contradictory to me. I've never heard of the ground causing an incomplete pass unless you're referring to the fact that when a pass hits the ground, the ball is dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 how the ground can cause an incomplete pass, but not a fumble. seems contradictory to me. I generally figure the ground can't cause a fumble because if a player hits the ground when he's being tackled, HE'S DOWN. If he hits the ground untouched and fumbles, live ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ts Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 There is also an inherent difference in a ball not yet in the posession of a player (ie, on an as yet to be completed pass) hitting the ground, vs. a player who has posession of the ball making contact with the ground as a result of prior contact with an opposing player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLAYER Posted October 18, 2008 Author Share Posted October 18, 2008 You make a diving catch cross the goal line with the ball in your possesion while in the air and when you land the ball pops out. the ball never hits the ground but the force of the landing on you arms causes it to come out. you hit the ground with a body part before it comes out yet it is incomplete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmjones101 Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 You make a diving catch cross the goal line with the ball in your possesion while in the air and when you land the ball pops out. the ball never hits the ground but the force of the landing on you arms causes it to come out. you hit the ground with a body part before it comes out yet it is incomplete. In that scenario it was never in possession. You have to either touch two feet to the ground while holding onto the ball (to insinuate forward progress), or hold onto the ball until you're down and the play is dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Were you watching the Michigan game by chance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 There is also an inherent difference in a ball not yet in the posession of a player (ie, on an as yet to be completed pass) hitting the ground, vs. a player who has posession of the ball making contact with the ground as a result of prior contact with an opposing player. I agree that it is closer to the opposite than a similar circumstance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 (edited) I don't quite understand what you're trying to get at here. I can't think of any other possible interpretations of that rule. I just can't think of any alternatives that make sense. Are you saying a receiver shouldn't have to maintain control through contact with the ground?? Randy Moss would have 35 TD's if all he had to do was grab the ball in the air. The coming down with it is the hard part. So your interpretation of the rule is that all a receiver has to do is get two hands on the ball to complete a catch? How bout a baseball analogy, where they actually do have a very similar rule? Say Ken Griffey Jr. goes way back on a flyball and leaps high into the air.... reaches way up.... and catches the ball.....then BAM!!! crashes into the wall, which of course makes the ball pop out and falls to the ground. I ask you, should the batter get a touchdown? Edited October 19, 2008 by Seahawks21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turf Smurf Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 You make a diving catch cross the goal line with the ball in your possesion while in the air and when you land the ball pops out. the ball never hits the ground but the force of the landing on you arms causes it to come out. you hit the ground with a body part before it comes out yet it is incomplete. This is all that matters, the rest is bunk. With possession, once the ball crosses the line, the play is dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Cheezhead Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 This is all that matters, the rest is bunk. With possession, once the ball crosses the line, the play is dead. Somebody is stretching the real definition of possession. I'm pretty sure Slayer knows that a pass-catcher can't actually have possession without having both feet hit the ground WHILE the ball is being held securely. And, as Chavez said, the ground CAN cause a fumble if the ballcarrier wasn't touched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLAYER Posted October 19, 2008 Author Share Posted October 19, 2008 Let me try this again, pertaining to college only, because when you hit the groung play is dead. so why does it have to be feet in catching the ball if you have possesion and you knees or elbows hit the ground first then the ball pops out, it should be complete and down where he hit the ground IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig devilz Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Slayer....if you're refering to the Penn St/Mich game I dont think the receiver had possesion. You are correct in your definition above (post 12) but on that play, he was ruled to never have possesion....and I think they got it right. he didnt have 'control' all the way to the ground, then lost it cpmpletley when he hit the ground. i think it was the not having control part that made that an incomplete, not the hitting the ground part.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLAYER Posted October 19, 2008 Author Share Posted October 19, 2008 Slayer....if you're refering to the Penn St/Mich game I dont think the receiver had possesion.You are correct in your definition above (post 12) but on that play, he was ruled to never have possesion....and I think they got it right. he didnt have 'control' all the way to the ground, then lost it cpmpletley when he hit the ground. i think it was the not having control part that made that an incomplete, not the hitting the ground part.... I'm not referring to that play in particular because I agree that was incomplete. It was what they said afterward when discussing it that brought on the question about even if he had control until he hit the ground and it come out it would have been incomplete because the ground can cause an incompleted pass but not cause a fumble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 My guess would be that since he could not possibly get both feet down, he has to show complete possession through out the landing on the ground to prove he had possession all the way. I admit, I had no idea which way they were going to call that particular play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig devilz Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 now you got me curious.....so i looked through my college rules i understand this to mean he is down and the ground can not cause an incomplete, (or a fumble for that matter) Ball Declared Dead Rule 4 Article 3 Article 3. A live ball becomes dead and an official shall sound his whistle or declare it dead: b. 'When any part of the ball carrier's body, except his hand or foot, touches the ground or when the ball carrier is tackled or otherwise falls and loses possesion of the ball as he contacts the ground with any part of his body, except his hand or foot.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Say Ken Griffey Jr. goes way back on a flyball and leaps high into the air.... reaches way up.... and catches the ball.....then BAM!!! crashes into the wall, which of course makes the ball pop out and falls to the ground. I ask you, should the batter get a touchdown? I have yet to see a hitter awarded a touchdown in a baseball game. But then I'm only a casual fan of MLB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 (edited) I have yet to see a hitter awarded a touchdown in a baseball game. But then I'm only a casual fan of MLB. play on words, funny??? Slayer.......how would you word the rule if you were to rewrite it?? Would you write that any player that secures the ball with both hands at any time is then given credit for a catch? In that circumstance, every time a player goes up for a ball and grabs it, then the defender gets a hand in there and knocks the ball loose, it would be a fumble, correct? Edited October 19, 2008 by Seahawks21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.